130 Responses

Just be sure to wear your helmet and pads for a while, when you go out in public. The Michael Moore sycophants are gonna be P.O.ed and if Al Franken sees this, he’s gonna wanna wrestle around on the floor with you for a while! 😉

I find it fascinating that there could be a chance for Hillary in ’08. With everything in that trunk, she shouldn’t stand a chance but she seems to have mo’.

Love her or hate her, she’s got everyone talking about her, and that’s the only thing that matters in politics and Hollywood. Bush has proven you can polarize and still win an election. If it worked for him, why not Hillary?

As a person who is at least as liberal as Hillary used to be (before she started acting like a presidential candidate looking for votes in Kansas), I think it’s hilarious. It skewers her just where she deserves it, and it gets her attitude too.

But your work jabs the rap genre too. I don’t see how that’s a propos – even if it made brilliant points on rap music, it still distracts from the Hillary points. And though some may put you right up there with Weird Al Yankovic, I myself just see plain ridicule, or even a put-down, of the style.

So I can’t imagine any ordinary Black people thinking this video is funny. Indeed, they’ll be offended if they think the cartoon ridicules Hillary for empathizing with African-Americans and their key issues. I don’t want to be the one who shows this to any of my Black friends.

As for the music, well, I’ve never heard the Black Eyed Peas, but I think it fits perfectly for a handful of reasons: one, it’s very current, two, it fits, three, it would be just like Hillary to pander to not only young people who listen to BEP’s but also African-Americans; four, you’d have to write something completely original to beat it!

Nick can’t be too much of a lily-livered liberal if he skewers Hillary like that!! More Nick! More Nick!!

Avon and Jeffrey: I agree with most of your posts. However, both of you live in NYC and you have come around to thinking the way many of my NY friends think of Hillary — that she has sold out the progressive movement in order to position herself for the 2008 presidential election. Even if that argument were true (which it isn’t), Hillary Clinton has not changed course. She and Bill have always been centrists. That is how Bill got elected president — by being a moderate Democrat from the South.

The Republican Party has moved so far to the right that GOPers now think centrists are liberals. And the left wing of the Democratic Party now believes that moderates and realists are sellouts. This harkens back to the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago when a true liberal like Hubert Humphrey was condemned unfairly by the leftist anti-war movement. This attitude, of course, allowed Richard Nixon to be elected president.

So, if the Democrats want to continue shooting themselves in the foot, all they have to do is deny the nomination to their strongest candidate — Hillary — and choose someone like Chuck Schumer or Barbara Boxer who do not play well in middle America.

The Republicans are doing the same thing because the nominating process is run by religious conservatives and extremists from the far right. If Democrats follow this tactic in order to keep their candidate “pure,” the American people, who are much more moderate than either party, will continue to be turned off to the whole voting process.

WOW! You really out did yourself. That is worthy of national attention…but I’d hate to lose your local opinion.

I’d vote for Hillary, but your points raised are very valid. I guess I could be like some of the local neo-con complainers and rant and rave about how you always hate “fill-in-the-blank” and are a one-trick-pony etc. etc. ad-nauseam, instead of you just calling them as you see them.

Ugh. That typo’d been fixed (yes, an editor caught it). The Windows Media and Quicktime versions were right, but we must’ve used the older version for the Flash conversion. Too many moving parts and not enough organizational skills on my part.

Actually, Don, I live in New Jersey, just outside Manhattan, and I’m reasonably happy with my senators.

In a sane world, NYC, northern New Jersey, Westchester County, and western Long Island would be merged into the 51st state, but that’s another issue entirely, and we’d still have Hillary.

Lazarus, the Republicans certainly are not going to nominate an all African-American ticket. While there is nothing inherently racist about conservatism, there is something about conservatism that makes it a comfortable home for people who are racist, and that wing of the party would simply not allow such a thing to happen. I can see one or the other being nominated (probably Rice, since Powell is way too “liberal” — read: “rational” — for the fundamentalist base), but not both.

Jeff, I find that VERY insulting to me personally, to the Republican Party, as well as the entire nation to have that type of bigoted statement come be placed in print. I would have hoped that type of sick race-card playing would be beneath even you.

I think the only reason Powell might not be nominated is he might not run. He has a family and he has already given his entire life making this a better nation. If he doesn’t run I hope they ask him to be VP but I’d much rather see his experience at the top of the tick with Rice as VP for great council.

I also think it apropos that Party of Lincoln be the first to offer the first non-white ticket. I really wouldn’t care what their color is. I like their guts, style and intelligence. We all are all some color Jeff – okay I have a couple of friends over in Beaumont, one has no color, the other a tiny bit, but they both can, and have, laid down the blues with the best. But setting to the side those kinds of folk with medical unusualities, we ALL ARE COLORED.

You appear to be entirely in sync with the PC constitutional principle that only a member of a group may make fun of the group, unless you’re a white male, in which case you’re fair game for all sides.

You perpetuate this ridiculous attitude by self-censorship. I don’t want to be the one who shows this to any of my Black friends.

Would the cartoon have been funny with jazz as a soundtrack or with C&W? Of course not, because Hillary has not associated herself with the segments of society that listen to that music. She has sought (actually taken for granted) votes from the young black community, the same community that created and propagates rap music. You cannot allow your heroine to wrap herself in the attributes of an element of society and then claim that comments about the “wrapping” (no pun intended) are inherently racist.

And why are you offended on behalf of blacks? Would you have us believe that they incapable of deciding when to be offended for themselves? How condescending. I am so tired of you propagators of “White Guilt.” You have transmuted Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden” into the obligation to care for everyone’s feelings whether or not they have them.

I’m not for truly offending others, but good God, you drain the fun out of a legitimate joke.

So that we all might have a giggle, please cite whatever it is in my post that you think was bigoted.

It is a fact, a sad one, to be sure, but a fact nonetheless, that ever since the late sixties, the Republican Party hhas made a cozy home for racists. If you don’t like this, that’s to your credit, but don’t blame me; for once, the party of personal responsibility” can actually act responsibly. Clean up your own house. Sadly, you’ve chosen instead to accuse me of racism in the hope that no one would notice that you’ve, once again, avoided the issue.

Yes, the GOP was the party of Lincoln, but at that time, and until the 1890s, the Republicans were the liberal party.

Me? I’d love to see Powell get the nomination. I just don’t think it’ll happen, unless he starts foaming at the mouth like the GOP base.

What are you talking about?? Bill and Hillary aren’t Centrist Democrats.

Don’t you remember the attempt by Hillary for universal healthcare?? They are closet leftests and people pleasers. Neither one of them can do what’s in their heart because 90% of the American people would think its off the charts so, you could say, that they both actually lack the moral compass to lead the nation.

Hillary Clinton scares the hell out of me and even the thought of her as president makes me want to puke. I hope that the memories of the Clinton presidency is not so far removed from peoples minds that they choose to put another one in office.

I thought it was really funny. Can’t see where the rap genre was an insult. To me it was just the vehicle for humor. What I’m really surprised at is that a newspaper as liberal as the Chronicle would put it on the front page of their website. Will wonders never cease?

Nick…..Wow be careful you could be the next Vince Foster. Hillary will do anything & Bill (anyone) to acheive what they want. Of course you must know what “it” is. Please do use my name or e-mail address. KEEP US LAUGHING.

I am no Hillary fan, but I do not see your point. The baggage, like Whitewater, is really no baggage at all because no illegal activities were conducted. Even the rabid Republicans could not find any. And Monica was not her doing.

I find her exaggerated features offensive. You are very talented. Wouldn’t your talents be better used by drawing attention to a politician with a pea-sized brain, who used to walk with a swagger and who lied about the need to go to war, stole from investors, and may very well be guilty of war crimes? Maybe you could set this one with the Dixie Chick singing in the background.

Republicans rock! or is it rap! Yeah Hilary she be a skank ho. Mission Accomplished! I just wish Bush could run again 4 more years 4 more years viva bush! Houston is the best place to live because we are all so smart here!

Wonderful work, Nick. You wisely excluded much of her criminal activity and saved yourself from writer’s cramps. Either Castle Grande or the collapse of Madison Guaranty S&L should have earned her jail time. The same for bagging more than $90K on futures trades arranged with a Tyson lawyer. If almost a year in the tank for unlawful trading is good for Martha Stewart, why not Hillary, too?

It is funny we make fun of hilary, when bush is sooooooo dumb, one almost does not even have to make a picture. Just look at him. What’s inside his closet all of you brain washed conservatives. Remember conservative government is supposed to be small or libertarian type. Next time make bushes trunk the size of china. WORD.

Your ‘cartoon’ is pretty lame and of course nothing was really found in the search of Whitewater, the travel office and on and on. The contant search by Ken Starr yielding nothing! Bill goofed with Monica, but as the saying goes, nobody died. I’m constantly amazed at the stupidity of the party of family values. Bush et al have been spinning their spiel (sp?) like a yo yo and people are beginning (finally) to wake up.

Very entertaining. Hillary’s falling in the trunk at the end of the video was as much a commentary as the lyrics. This will surely go national within weeks. I disagree that this might offend the rap genre. Hip-hop is so mainstream that it transcends race. So, what will we see for an encore?

It doesn’t take a very inventive mind to think like a FOX news reporter. Fair & Balanced!? If we had all listened to Hillary 12 years ago when she tried to straighten out our Medical Insurance mess instead of letting the Insurance lobby submarine her, we would be a lot better off. Why don’t you stick to what you’re best at, writing about life instead of living it?

Bashing the liberals is all the rave for the Republicans. The timing of this little diddy is suspect with elections less than one month away. You are about as fair and balanced as Fox news?! I just wonder if you put on knee pads when kneeling next to Rep. Foley when appeasing the Republicans?

Ya know it’s a sad day in media; in what will soon be the THIRD largest city in the US, that a jack-leg (reporter?) spends his time on crap like this. I’m ashamed of you Nick.

Certainly this news paper MUST belong to Clear Channel – the ‘Halliburton’ of all media. How about an unbiased non slanted, perhaps intelligent and interesting, maybe even a helpful article on your next try. And unbelievably, this filth is on the front page of our city’s news paper (fish wrap) for the entire world and world’s children to see. And on Sunday to boot! Has the rainy day – slow news day got you down? Come on man. This hate makes me ashamed to be a Houstonian… born and bread.

Lastly, we ought to get used to the possibility of another Clinton in the White House. Let’s face it; she has eight years of quality experience at being president. Who else has those credentials on their resume? NNNNNo one… I rest my case.

Bashing the liberals is all the rave for the Republicans. The timing of this little diddy is suspect with elections less than one month away. You are about as fair and balanced as Fox news?! I just wonder if you put on knee pads when kneeling next to Rep. Foley when appeasing the Republicans?

Posted by: JG at October 15, 2006 10:39 AM

Your post is hilarious to anyone who has read Nick’s toons for even a short time. We Republicans have ripped on him for his left-wing bias, and to have someone say the opposite when it is so clearly untrue is just too precious. The vehemence of your post suggests that you think it blasphemous that Hillary’s name be mentioned in anything but veneration. (Hillary is biding her time in the centrist closet – If she comes out and you lefties get all the government that you say you want, you won’t be too pleased with the resulting denial of YOUR choices that will accompany the righting of all the world’s wrongs.)

mc and Nancy: Please look up “caricature” in the dictionary. The accenting of features in a satirical drawing. Hence DeGaulle’s nose and Prince Charles (and Bush’s) ears, etc. You folks deperately need an emergency transplant: your sense of humor is dead.

Nick: I loved the cartoon, and am sincerely looking forward to something of the same genre on Bush.

I think we can all agree that if the next President’s last name is neither Bush or Clinton there is a much, much better chance of us NOT being so divided. It’s time to become the UNITED States of America again.

What an original! Trashing Hillary for no good reason other than that she’s there for you to do it. What a big, funny guy you are. Thump your chest a few times to reinforce your manliness. Doesn’t it feel good? And at least 6 more years to do it! The fun will never stop! What a funny guy!

The problem is that just about everyone who could be considered a possible Presidential candidate has some junk in his/her trunk. On the GOP side McCain has an S&L scandal in his, Rudy has affairs in his. I don’t know much about Romney, but I’d bet he has a skeleton or two in his closet. It’s the system we have; it’s almost possible to rise to the top and stay clean. All voters have to decide what junk they want to ignore.

It’s a shame, actually. I like Hillary (and Bill, for that matter), but given how polarized the nation is already, the junk from her trunk would not be helpful.

This is almost terrifying to someone like myself who just became eligable to vote. I do not like ANY politician currently in office… Republican or Democrat. It is very apparent to me and most of my friends that the entire system of politics is functioning on 2 sides of a powerful magnet. It is SCARING the regular people who’s judgements on issues are not dictated by a party platform.

I wish someone would make a cartoon bashing BOTH sides of the political spectrum… because right now, I do not see ANY moderates posting here. And that is BAD for our country.

I didn’t care for the “beat and tempo” of your spoof on Hillary. Is the implication that only minorities support her? Can’t argue that Hillary will have to contend with all of the issues, or “junk.” Can only wonder what you’d do for George Allen.

Maddie’s observation that “nothing was really found in the search of Whitewater” offers insight into how most libs think (actually DON’T think). Maddie, how about 15 convictions of a judge (David Hale), the Ark. governor (Jim Guy Tucker), the McDougals, Webster Hubbell and 10 other Clinton chums and co-creeps? The two big fish got away after Bernie Nussbaum, Maggie Williams and other Clinton cohorts confiscated and almost certainly destroyed evidence. Maddie, you need to understand the basic difference in our two corrupt parties. At least when the Rs find bad people in their midst, like Nixon and Mark Foley, they toss them.

It was pretty obvious that Maddie meant that nothing was found against the Clintons, just as it was pretty obvious at the time that the object was never the pursuit of justice but rather to “get” Bill and Hillary no matter what the cost.

The Republicans are the party of big business, but any businessperson would say that $50 million to get 15 convictions is a pretty poor return on investment.

> I do not see ANY moderates posting here

I used to be smack dab in the center…and I haven’t changed my views. If I’m to the left now, it’s because the Republicans have pulled the country so far to the right. Don’t believe me? Barry Goldwater lost the ’64 election because he was considered to be a right-wing extremist, but a candidate with his beliefs today would never get nominated by the Republicans — he’d be too “librul”. When William Rehnquist died, he was praised for his moderation, yet when he was nominated, he too, was considered to be of the far right.

If thats your job, Hey I respect that. This is America I have seen people get paid for doing more trivial jobs, The joke is really on your president and how is sold his soul and the souls of many innocent people for a dollar, Yeh its cute but whats going on in this country is not really a laughing matter. Try to use your postion to enlighten your veiwers not to someones physicalls flaws and more on real hard facts, unless your willing to highlight your own physical flaws… Have a Great Day

Personally I though Nick gave Hillary proper respect for any politician. It’s humor folks, laugh, move on find something else, no reason to become rabid and bite a chunk out of the hind end of a reporter.

and remember folks if you don’t get your information from more then one place how will you know who’s right.

KUDOS, that is HILLARYous! Its obvious that we need to come to the cruel realization that BOTH PARTIES are in serious need of a re-organization. Keep on drawing, I will keep on laughing. Thanks for making my day.

>>>”Barry Goldwater lost the ’64 election because he was considered to be a right-wing extremist, but a candidate with his beliefs today would never get nominated by the Republicans — he’d be too “librul”.”John F. Kennedy barely won the ’60 election because he was considered to be a Left-wing extremist, but a candidate with his beliefs today would never get nominated by the Democrats — he’d be too “conservative”.

Great cartoon. I will vote for her. Much of the baggage that she is saddled with is stuff that was made up by the “get” Bill & Hillary whacko conservatives. It is obscene that the wealthy conservatives have used their wealth to distort our democracy. I don’t understand how Christians can be conservative as their values are anti Christian.

I love your cartoons, no matter whom they are about. I loved President Clinton; but do not care a bit for Hillary, hope she does not run, etc. But this animation is just brilliant, and hysterically funny.

I do not care for rap music, but it IS mainstream now, we chant it at football games, hear it in tv commercials and so I fail to understand that some find it racist to use [rap] as a soundtrack?!? People, get a grip! This is why we are America; there’s room for all of us, and we borrow from and lend to each other, and we are all the better for it. We are the melting pot, not the cafeteria tray with all the stuff

To know Christian values you’d have to be one. Most mainstream Christians do not support abortion or homosexuality, they do not want to see terrorists on our shores, want less government, fewer taxes. Loved the cartoon, sent it on to lots of folks who will enjoy the beat and the joke.

In case anyone who asked me questions is still reading, now that I’m finally back from the weekend … you can have my answer if you want:

Nick, I don’t mean to insult you – and I don’t think I actually do so – by saying that your work tweaks the rap genre. After all, it’s no insult to say that cartooning tweaks art. To tweak well, one must have mastery in the first place. I don’t see how you could say that your piece pays the rap genre solemn respect, and I don’t think you owe it that.

I may be wrong about what my African-American friends would like, but I don’t think so. When I say my concern is for how I think others will feel, it doesn’t have to be because I’m equally offended. Unless you’re a lot older or more socially isolated than most New Yorkers, you can’t be a race whisperer. And the TV thing is laughable; I’m always working or doing family or community stuff, so I don’t watch more than an hour a month of any kind of TV. So, if Phile G. or others are not offended, I say: Good – because I like Nick!

Don, I don’t think New Yorkers are really so clueless about politics as to be overly interested in purity. We just know that Hillary represented our interests five or ten years ago, and doesn’t now.

And I get the concept of relative shifting along the political spectrum; I believe that even though some complain that the Supreme Court has grown increasingly liberal, that’s only relative to the vocal citizenry, and it’s no more conservative in absolute terms … indeed, it’s become more conservative than in 75 years. But still, I don’t agree that it’s only the country, not Hillary, who has moved along the spectrum. She would never publicly espouse the policies she did then, and she has publicly disavowed many of them (mostly, on hot-button issues). Even on other ideas, like single-payer healthcare coverage, she won’t support – or at least she won’t say so – despite having been a leading champion of them.

I’m perplexed myself. I too am no fan of hiphop (which is probably the first symptom of impending oldfarthood) but I don’t get the objections to Nick’s choice in music. It’s one of many possible musical choices, and no more or less valid than setting the piece to classical or rock or jazz or anything else.

I do not care for rap music, but it IS mainstream now, we chant it at football games, hear it in tv commercials and so I fail to understand that some find it racist to use [rap] as a soundtrack?!? People, get a grip

Avon said: “I believe that even though some complain that the Supreme Court has grown increasingly liberal, that’s only relative to the vocal citizenry, and it’s no more conservative in absolute terms … indeed, it’s become more conservative than in 75 years. But still, I don’t agree that it’s only the country, not Hillary, who has moved along the spectrum. She would never publicly espouse the policies she did then, and she has publicly disavowed many of them (mostly, on hot-button issues). Even on other ideas, like single-payer healthcare coverage, she won’t support – or at least she won’t say so – despite having been a leading champion of them.”

My point is the Supreme Court has been making its own laws or using international laws, not interpreting the Constitution. Therefore, it has become more liberal. And if you don’t like what Hillary is saying on one coast, listen to what she’s saying elsewhere; she talks out of both sides of her mouth, pandering to the special interests of the audience to which she speaks. And what has she accomplished as senator for our state? Not much.

Better keep that trunk open, there’s a hell of a lot more in there thats going to come out.

Like:

Bill and Hillary often lied about who she was named after. But one big hole has been poked in the story over the years, both in cyberspace and elsewhere: Sir Edmund became famous only after climbing Everest in 1953. Mrs. Clinton, as it happens, was born in 1947.

mr. salzberg said>>It is a fact, a sad one, to be sure, but a fact nonetheless, that ever since the late sixties, the Republican Party hhas made a cozy home for racists. If you don’t like this, that’s to your credit, but don’t blame me; for once, the party of personal responsibility” can actually act responsibly. Clean up your own house. Sadly, you’ve chosen instead to accuse me of racism in the hope that no one would notice that you’ve, once again, avoided the issue.

Yes, the GOP was the party of Lincoln, but at that time, and until the 1890s, the Republicans were the liberal party.

—————————————

beg your pardon, sir, but i believe you would do well to go back to high school and READ the real history where the democrat party. do some research on these individuals and you’ll find their atrociously RACIST behaviour to be closely linked to their politics. duly take note of their party affiliations…

FDR – rounded up Japanese-Americans during WWII

– appointed Byrnes, a segregationalist and Black a former KKK member, to the U.S. Supreme Courts – both DEMOCRATS.

Sen. Robert Byrd – former kleagle in the KKK, filibustered Civil Rights Act of 1964; flouted the “N” word on national television in 2001; rabid segregationalist. Democrat

Jesse Jackson – “hymie Town” slur against NYC. Democrat

Dan Rather – “buckwheat” slur on Imus in 2001

Democratic National Convention in New York of 1924 – surprise, called the “Klanbake convention”

The complete list of the 21 Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes Senators:

– Hill and Sparkman of Alabama

– Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas

– Holland and Smathers of Florida

– Russell and Talmadge of Georgia

– Ellender and Long of Louisiana

– Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi

– Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina

– Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina

– Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee

– H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia

– R. Byrd of West Virginia

Outside of Congress, the three most notorious opponents of school integration were all Democrats:

– Orval Faubus, Democrat Governor of Arkansas and one of Bill Clinton’s political mentors

– George Wallace, Democrat Governor of Alabama

– Lester Maddox, Democrat Governor of Georgia

Democrat Faubus used police and state forces to block the integration of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas. The standoff was settled and the school was integrated only after the intervention of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: introducing a quote by Mahatma Ghandi – “He ran a gas station down in St. Louis.” —- January 2001, St. Louis, MO fundraiser.(GOOGLE search the incident)

JIM CROW LAWS – introduced by democrats who were less than thrilled with Reconstruction.

Blacks weren’t welcomed into the Democratic Party until 1935, when Congressman Arthur Mitchell (who Democrats supported for his opposition to the NAACP) was elected in Chicago.

Democrats supported Slavery and its expansion into the northern states

Democrats introduced the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery into the northern states

Democrats supported and participated in burning down middle class black communities like those in Rosewood, Florida, Wilmington, North Carolina and the Greenwood District (Black Wallstreet) in Tulsa Oklahoma

Southern Democrats fraudulently took over two million acres of black property according to an investigation by Associated Press

Democrats in an effort to keep blacks in their place used sadistic torture, terror and violence including: lynching, mutilations, murder, decapitations and beating and burning to death countless number of blacks.

When Senate Democrats successfully blocked three of President Bush’s nominees for federal appeals-court judgeships in a 40-hour debate initiated by Republicans, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., told reporters that he would continue to oppose any “Neanderthal that is nominated by the president for any federal court.” — (http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44019)

so there…i, as well as many other republicans, would appreciate it if you would hit the books – the ones that haven’t been RE-WRITTEN – and you’ll find out that the democrats were and are still racist; still willing to re-write history and continue the blatant lie that republicans are racist. racism is core to democrat beliefs despite what they publicly espouse. if you are a minority and DON’T tow the democrat party line, you’re sure to find yourself a target of theirs.

now, i apologize for going off topic, but i couldn’t let this one pass. besides, hillary’s ARSE is fair game. it stands out as much as her ankles do. if gwb can joke about himself and have no problem with others laughing at his expense, surely HILL can handle some jabbing about her bum. and what a huuuge bum it is indeed.

Lady L: I’m incredulous. The US Supreme Court more liberal? Than what? This is easily the most conservative court in the past 50 years. All but two of the justices were appointed by Republican presidents. In my view, the current court would have ruled differently in the landmark case, Brown v Board of Education (1954), which would have kept segregated “separate but equal” schools.

utterly intolerant of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

Remember – your statements to the effect “Only the good things that have been done in this country have been done by liberals!

Those were bigoted and I never called you one them. But when you make a direct attack, playing a sick political race-card on the Party of Lincoln, the Republicans, always a Constructionist Party defending the meaning of the Writers of the Constitution, I had to say something.

I would remind you that Democratic Boston was the last city to fight integration and continues to be one of the most racists in the nation. Of all places, I believe Massachusetts the heart of way left liberalism, remains one of the most racist states, north or south of the Mason-Dickson Line.

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

As for racists, I assume the KKK fits the criteria, and what party found a “home” with them, well it seems it was the Democrats with the those problems with KKK Grand Dragon Wizard candidate Robert Byrd, the Democratic senior senator from West Virginia, talking on the national television in 2001 throwing about the “N” word.

Maybe you should be working the “log from your own eye” and while considering your eye problem, you may reconsider your rock throwing, with you in a THIN glass house and all.

Moving on:

How could I have “avoided the issue,” as you accuse? Jeff, I BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE !!! You took exception to it.

XXX

Tim Urban – Nick, God bless him, is pretty much a liberal. But he is in my nightly prayers he will see the light. Anyway, I don’t think this was so much anti-Clinton as a “notice” to the Democrats that Senator Clinton wasn’t a shoe-in as Prez and might want to check around for a VP that balances thing.

XXX

j. bankston Why spoof ‘W’, he’s not running for nothing. Does the term ‘lame duck’ bring up anything other than your 10-guage?

XXX

lumberjack dude, that’s what he does. He exaggerates people’s political beliefs/actions just as he does their image to draw attention to those beliefs or actions. That’s why he’s called a political cartoonist. Sometimes it’s one side, sometimes another – although as is his right in free country, he often lampoons those on the right. To his credit, we’re seeing more positive stuff on the right. But the right-wing is in power and make the most opportunities for him.

As for his approving posts, some of us go off on tangents (of course I never do!!!), some send posts with nasty words to him. He has to check these posts to make sure they are proper for the public. He’s a good man lumberjack – and a good artist.

XXX

Gee, Demogreat your hound dog need its sinus cleared, it treed a lynx! Read some of Nick’s older stuff before you brand him the second coming of Ted Kennedy or Barry Goldwater!

XXX

Frederick Lazare Fred see suggestion above

XXX

Andrew I can only answer this one pledge: Unless things change, It doesn’t get any better.

XXX

Opinion: I don’t like all the Black-Eyed Peas’ tunes. But they’ve got some kewl grooves.

CORRECTION: In statement Nick B 3l373 2 D s7r337 G07 pr0ps 4 his b0p

Misspelled “elite” should be 31i73, – for those that don’t know frag. The sentence says:

You act as if you were unaware that until the 1970s, the two parties in the South, including Texas, were Liberal Democrats and Conservative Democrats. The conservative Democrats were indistiguishable from the Republicans in the rest of the country and, indeed, would have been Republicans if they could have been elected as same.

Avon said: “So I can’t imagine any ordinary Black people thinking this video is funny. Indeed, they’ll be offended if they think the cartoon ridicules Hillary for empathizing with African-Americans and their key issues. I don’t want to be the one who shows this to any of my Black friends.”

Do you really think that the African American population feels they are being represented by the Black Eyed Peas? That is not Hip Hop.

The video gives her a smoother voice, which is troubling. That voice of her’s is so annoying, I hate to think that this was put out there to mitagate it. I’m telling you, got to watch these guys and their attempts at image manipulaton.

“Love her or hate her, she’s got everyone talking about her, and that’s the only thing that matters in politics and Hollywood. Bush has proven you can polarize and still win an election. If it worked for him, why not Hillary?

Posted by: JDMac at October 13, 2006 04:45 PM”

If you go to Rasmussen polls

and look at Bush’s approval rating I think today you will find 42% Strongly disapprove

On the same website under Hillary meter, you will find 40% will definitely vote against.

Isn’t that interesting Bush and the person claimed to be the Democrats great hope would be a dead heat.

Don, your comment leads me to believe you haven’t followed their decisions.

Until this last year the Supreme Court has definitely been liberal. It wasn’t conservatives that got rid of a Texas law against sodomy, nor found a “right to privacy” somewhere in the Constitution (hint, it isn’t there), allowing for abortions, it wasn’t conservatives that tried to remove the Ten Commandments from public buildings. We could go on. There was no litmus test for judges by Republicans, you can see the result in their statements, that some turned out to be liberal. We can wait to see if the new term will prove that the Judges interpret the Constitution, or continue to make law for themselves out of international laws, their imagination or public sentiment. That is the only modicum of conservatism we can hope for. In God we trust.

Lady L: Excuse me, but for years I was taught that the conservative philosophy holds the rights of the individual paramount over the right of government, namely that the less government interference we have, the better. This is precisely why many American pioneers chose to leave the East Coast and journey westward in search of freedom from government intervention and interference in their lives.

Similarly, I was taught that liberals tend to champion the right of government to make decisions for us — for the “greater good” so to speak.

Are you telling me now that your breed of conservative wants the federal government to make these decisions for us?

If you think the government should be making decisions with regard to abortion, homosexuality and promotion of a particular religion, you are not a conservative. You may be a fundamenalist Christian who wishes to impose her own religious or moral principles on others, but that does not make you a political conservative.

While I believe in limited government, and individualism is a goal, One cannot always over rule the majority. Where there were no laws, why make rights out of thin air? If our founders felt certain laws were necessary to ensure the safety and well being of our country, they made those laws. Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion, and all are welcome in our country. No country can survive without some laws. Abortion was not an issue in the 1700s, and homosexuals were not looking for special treatment. We are talking about the Supreme Court making laws, not interpreting the Constitution, as is their sworn duty. That is your “liberals tend to champion the right of government to make decisions for us — for the “greater good” so to speak.”

I am not a libertarian but a social and fiscal conservative. A society that doesn’t embrace some standards will fall, as they all have throughout history. Our representative republic has stood well over the centuries in relying on basic laws for the common good. Now politicians renege on promises, sell their vote to the special interest lobbyists and heed not the voters in their districts. Is that what we want from the Supreme Court? I think not.

A representative government should respect the rights of the minority. Otherwise it is a tyranny of the majority. Government is not intended solely to protect the rights of the majority. They are the ones with power and do not need protection.

That said, the anti-abortion forces are not in the majority in this country. Polls over the past few decades have consistently shown that most Americans favor a woman’s right to choose. Enacting laws or otherwise preventing choice in this personal decision is not only wrong, it is in effect favoring the religious views of a vocal minority. It is the antithesis of what our forefathers intended.

For some reason, you apparently see labor unions and teacher groups as “special interests,” but you do not see religious groups that have a social agenda as special interests. Groups affiliated with Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the like — including the so-called “Moral Majority” and the Christian Coalition — are lobbying Congressmen and Senators daily and are among the largest special interest groups in Washington.

You say you are a fiscal conservative, Lady L. If that is true, you must be appalled at the massive debt President Bush has racked up since he took office in January of 2001. You must be tremendously concerned at the multi-billion dollar trade imbalance between the US and China. And, if you have any kind of conscience, it must tear at your heart that there are so many people in this country who live in poverty, who don’t have enough to eat, who don’t have access to decent health care, who go to substandard schools, and who aren’t living the American dream.

This does bother me. That is why I consider myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. If we do get our financial house in order, maybe we can do more to improve the lot of all Americans rather than just providing tax breaks for those who need it least.

That depends of what you mean by “freedom FROM religion”. If you mean that someone shouldn’t have an expectation of never seeing any display of religion, I would agree. But if you mean that someone doesn’t have the right, if he/she chooses, to eschew religion and its influences, I don’t agree.

Freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion, and all are welcome in our country.

Actually, it’s been an issue as long as humankind has existed. The Greeks and Romans had the same sort of arguments about when human life begins. During Colonial times, English Law held that it was a crime after “quickening”.

Enacting laws or otherwise preventing choice in this personal decision is not only wrong, it is in effect favoring the religious views of a vocal minority.

Posted by: don at October 24, 2006 10:19 AM

You are absolutely right! The right to choose should prevail over any “manufactured” rights of the fetus.

Since no other citizen’s judgment is superior to mine, I “choose” to define a fetus as a human organism of age 35 years or less. Fetuses as so defined may be terminated at anyone’s discretion.

Strike you as asinine? I hope so. It does so because you accept that a breathing baby (and older) are human beings. I defy you to point to the instant in fetal development when it becomes a “human being.” Pro-choice folks typically point to viability or even birth as that dividing line. Pro-lifers point to conception. Neither can be proven right or wrong, except that if you think a fetus is morally equivalent to a benign skin tumor, you have never talked with an expectant parent.

Most pro-choice people in those polls accept that abortion is wrong, but they do not want to be in the business directly or indirectly of making that decision for other people.

Your “Federalist Paper” type argument about majority/minority tyranny is flawed because it begs the question of “Is the fetus a person?” If yes, then the fetus has inalienable rights with respect to which the political will of the majority/minority is irrelevant. If no, then we get to your argument. The majority/minority cannot be the determiners of what qualifies as human life. If they can, then they could define it as 35 years old. Or are we in Alice-in-Wonderland, where “Words means what I want them to mean at the time I say them, nothing more and nothing less” i.e., the American people get to make this law, but only within the boundaries I consider reasonable?

There is no solution here: The pro-life folks believe a fetus is human life. The pro-choicers posit that it is not, and then focus on the mother’s privacy rights.

If your religion or your set of values dictates…don’t try to tell me I have to believe this.

Posted by: don at October 25, 2006 11:18 PM

I think you evaded the point that I set out fairly neutrally, so you force me to make it more bluntly.

As ratified in 1789, Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution provided that in taking the decennial census, only 3/5ths of slaves were to be counted. It was not until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments after the Civil War that this was changed.

I take it that the logic of 1789 was OK in your eyes, as a significant portion of the people of the day supported slavery. Your statement “If your religion or your set of values dictates…don’t try to tell me I have to believe this” would apply equally to the slavery question.

Why do you not admit that the question of “who is a human being” is not political (i.e., subject to the popular will) and does not depend on what you or I believe?

To Mr. or Ms. Fair & Balanced (Fox “News” watcher): The one-legged man in question uses two aluminum crutches to get around. He is African-American and has graying hair. When I last saw him, he was on the northbound feeder road on the east side of the Loop at San Felipe. I hope your friend isn’t merely another capitalist in search of a customer.

It is your argument that defies credibility, JohnG. The Three-Fifths Compromise that you refer to allowed slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes. This bizarre concept was discarded as unreasonable well over a century ago. If we are to count embryos as human beings, would they count as three-fifths of a person or as a whole person under your rules?

When making laws, it is necessary for a legislative assembly to apply logic and reason to those laws. The Three-Fifths Compromise failed to pass the smell test, as does your argument that we should start counting embryos as people.

So the stock market has been breaking records for days now. Hmmm. I wonder if former Enron employees have taken note. The Enron stock in their retirement plans was going gangbusters in 2001 before the bottom dropped out.

Fair & Balanced: You appear to be a Fox “News” aficionado. Perhaps you noticed today’s Fox News poll (www.foxnews.com) conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. With regard to the economy, 42% rate the economy as either excellent or good, while 57% say it is only fair or poor. And this is an improvement from six months ago when only 28% thought the economy was doing well and 72% thought it was not.

How do those polled feel their families are doing? A majority (53%) describe their situation as having “just enough money” to get by, while 29% say it feels as if they are “getting ahead” financially (oddly about the same percentage of people who say they support Bush), and 17% say they are “falling behind.”

Among the majority who say they are only maintaining their standard of living, these individuals are more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate by 26 points. Of those who say they are getting ahead, they are more likely to back the Republican by 41 points. Those falling behind back the Democrat by 55%.

Until Republicans are willing to address the needs of all Americans — not just the wealthiest among us, they will continue to fall out of favor.

This seemingly fair and balanced poll by Fox (not exactly a liberal media outlet)indicates that voters prefer the Democrats over the Republicans on virtually all issues — not only domestic issues but on the handling of Iraq as well (by +9 points). Democrats in fact have striking leads on such issues as health care (+34 points) and gas prices (+29 points).

According to the poll, voters are more than twice as likely to say that the Republican Party is the “more corrupt” party. In addition, they believe Democrats are better able to handle ethics in government by a 9-point margin.

If you are a Republican candidate, this poll should be an eye-opener. You are out of sync with the American people.

To Mr. or Ms. Fair & Balanced (Fox “News” watcher): The one-legged man in question uses two aluminum crutches to get around. He is African-American and has graying hair. When I last saw him, he was on the northbound feeder road on the east side of the Loop at San Felipe. I hope your friend isn’t merely another capitalist in search of a customer.

Posted by: don at October 26, 2006 05:49 PM

“The one-legged man in question uses two aluminum crutches to get around”

Ok, if he’s using crutches to stand I’m not as impressed.

“He is African-American and has graying hair.”

I always thought gray hair was racist.

“I hope your friend isn’t merely another capitalist in search of a customer.”

Don’t ya hate those mean ol people who help disabled people lead as close to a normal life as possible?

The ‘polls” had John Kerry winning the last Presidential election. Besides, most of America couldn’t tell you who the Vice President is so just becasue they don’t “feel” like the economy is doing well doesn’t mean it isn’t. My bank statements and ALL economic indicators tell me the economy is doing quite well. The liberal media just isn’t reporting on it.

As far as the Enron employees losing their “ill-gotten” gains….who cares? They knew what they were doing and they paid the price.

Fair & Balanced: I was going to let you off the hook until I read your last statement about the “ill-gotten gains” of Enron employees. I suppose Joe Smith in the mailroom and Thelma in reception were equally as guilty as Fastow, Skilling and Lay. I’m certain they were consulted on all the deals and called into the boardroom to express their views.

So, are we using YOUR bank statement as the best indicator for the state of the US economy now? I’m delighted to hear that YOU are doing so well. Perhaps you’d like to share a little of that excess cash with our one-legged friend over on San Felipe and the West Loop.

Do I understand you correctly when you say that the “liberal media” is deliberately distorting news about the economy? Since the information I quoted was directly from a FoxNews poll, I’m guessing that Rupert Murdoch would be surprised to hear your description of his organization.

Hopefully you and “Fair & Balanced” have enjoyed giving each other the finger.

Is it your position that because one man is poor and missing a leg that the economy is therefore in the dumper?

By the way, I only just now noticed your post on October 26, 2006 06:13 PM regarding fetal rights.

I have rarely seen such twisted logic. I cited the 3/5ths Compromise to make the point that the popular will is hardly the appropriate determiner of what constitutes a human being, and you suggest that my meaning was the embryos should be counted for census purposes?!?

On another cartoon, someone used the following apt parody: “The sky is blue and the ocean is blue, so the sky must be an ocean.” If you think my point was about the census, then I have overestimated you.

I have a quote for you to consider: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I submit that in this most fundamental of American political bedrock statements, there is not one mention of the people or of the legislature. There is only the individual, the Creator and the rights bestowed by the latter onto the former.

Accordingly, it follows that the determination of who or what constitutes a human being is outside of man’s purview.

JohnG: If the Creator determines who or what constitutes a human being rather than man, what man speaks for the Creator? You are also quoting the words of a man, hence your argument is illogical.

If you believe that people and the legislature are irrelevant to the discussion (i.e. “outside of man’s purview”), why do you insist that the government get involved in a matter involving individual choice and free will?

You are also quoting the words of a man, hence your argument is illogical.

Posted by: don at October 31, 2006 09:04 AM

The Founders (and their intellectual predescessors such as Rousseau) believed that our rights as men emanate directly from God. It is from this most fundamental of political premises that we derive the protection of those rights from deprivation by other men, except under the most extreme circumstances where the survival of society itself is at stake.

I decline to respond to what I consider an inane premise that a concept cannot be divine in origin because the words describing it are inherently man-made.

I am distinctly reminded of Potter Stewart’s famous line in Jacobellis v. Ohioabout the difficulty of defining pornography: “I know it when I see it.” What constitutes a human life is plainly obvious to everyday people, and we should err on the side of inclusiveness.

If you deny this; if you deny that there is an obvious common sense of this definition, and you assert that the starting point of life is a matter of free choice by individuals, then I refer you back to my prior (and still unaddressed) point that each of us could define this as being any age, perhaps as late as 35 years old.

If you consider age 35 to be ridiculous, then please reconcile your principle of “free choice” with how my exercise thereof is defective.

The government’s involvement is premised on its role as the enforcer of laws and protector of the citizenry, not as philosophical decider of who is or is not a human being. If the implication of your question were to be extended, then the government cannot prevent or even outlaw murder, as deciding who is a human being is outside of its purview.

Personally, I think the argument on the left is that you want the freedom to do what you want, and the inconvenience of the fetus’ rights will just have to be defeated by denying its human condition. Hence you declare it the same as a skin tumor. Claptrap, in my view.

“I submit that in this most fundamental of American political bedrock statements, there is not one mention of the people or of the legislature. There is only the individual, the Creator and the rights bestowed by the latter onto the former. Accordingly, it follows that the determination of who or what constitutes a human being is outside of man’s purview.” — JohnG

Who speaks for God, John? Who knows what He wants us to believe? Is it you and your anti-abortion friends, or is it the pro-choice people?

If you are going to cite the Creator as the decider (Or did Bush usurp that position?), whom will He channel his thoughts through? Do the Baptists or the Presbyterians have a direct pipeline to God? Maybe the evangelicals or the Mormans?

What if God is talking to the Islamists and telling them to destroy America? Oh, my God.

America is a nation of laws, John. The laws were written by man. Man can claim divine guidance if he so chooses, but the fact is that our laws were written by groups of men, and occasionally a few women, in smoke-filled rooms and were often the result of compromise — hardly something the Creator would feel compelled to do, don’t you think?

By the way, I don’t claim divine inspiration for this response — I wrote it myself with the aid of Spell Check.

Again you evade the straight-forward question of aborting a 35 year old, and if not, where and why you draw the line where you do.

I am beginning to think this question is too difficult for you to tackle.

Separately, I cannot imagine what experience you have had that creates such antipathy for religious faith and those who possess it. I do not have to share in that faith to appreciate the significance of 95% of the Earth’s population having some kind of organized faith.

Aborting a 35-year-old person is not abortion; it’s execution — something many Republicans and Democrats seem to be pretty comfortable with. I see no need to respond to something that is unrelated to the issue we’ve been discussing.

As far as religion is concerned, I have no problem with people of faith — any faith, so long as they don’t try to impose it on others. The reason I often compare contemporary Christians and Muslims is that both relgions have extremists and literalists who have taken over from more moderate elements. These groups both hold extreme views that I fear will drive us to war or the edge of war. This has happened throughout history. Oddly, both Christianity and Islam claim to be religions of peace.

I have several times tried to get you to explain the logic of where you draw the line between a fetus and a human being, so that we can as a matter of logic distinguish that from an arbitrary choice. I have tried to illustrate this by a hyperbolic example – the 35 yr old.

But once again, you evade the point – you implicitly posit that the 35 yr old is a human being, just as you posit that the fetus is not. One might be tempted to accuse you of treating this as a matter of faith. I might then tell you to stop trying to impose your faith on others.

If you wish to defeat the common sense perception that a fetus is a human being, then you need to present a coherent set of principles (supported by persuasive facts and/or argument) that will allow any reader to replicate your decision process.

To date, you have not. You posit that a fetus is not human, and that those who disagree are Bible-thumping zealots who seek to impose their religion on everyone else. Here and I thought that keeping people alive was a moral and legal issue rather than religious.